The fans should have been upset with the team then, they had every chance in the world to sign him and choose to lowball him. The Pats made a business decision, AV made a business decision - end of story. I think people who can't get over this need to grow up.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. I'm not saying the fans were right to boo Vinatieri, I'm saying it's predictable that some would behave that way, because that's what fans do. You wouldn't expect anybody to boo Bledsoe, due to the circumstances surrounding his departure, but I think you could reasonably expect people to react that way to Adam.

The fans should have been upset with the team then, they had every chance in the world to sign him and choose to lowball him. The Pats made a business decision, AV made a business decision - end of story. I think people who can't get over this need to grow up.

Click to expand...

I totally understand Adam's decision. But, I am a Patriots fan first. You can be an Adam fan first if you like.

When Gostowski is a UFA again in 2015 at age 32 we shall see how his career plays out and whether he decides to be just another traitor.

Click to expand...

This is just way too black and white for my taste. If you had an opportunity to earn more long-term money in better conditions with a good employer, wouldn't you take it? Especially if your boss is known to make cold business decisions and your time could be coming to an end any year?

It's a job. Agreed it's more than a job, particularly to the fans. But "traitor" is just way over the top. Adam moved on to another team that was a better situation for him - and it worked out well for his old employer too. A win/win.

Bourque truly was and is the exception. If the Bourque situation has to be explained to you, then, forget it, you probably aren't going to undestand it.
The reader's digest version: He gave his all for 20 years...not only at a Hall of Fame level but (once St. Bobby is excluded) as one of the very few GOAT candidates at the D position... and for much of that time it was clear that the Bruins organization was governed solely by the bottom line, and not by a pursuit of the Cup. When it came time for the final contract, the Bruins organization so much admitted that since they were basically agreeable to trading him away but only to a team that had a shot at the Cup.

Bourque truly was and is the exception. If the Bourque situation has to be explained to you, then, forget it, you probably aren't going to undestand it.
The reader's digest version: He gave his all for 20 years...not only at a Hall of Fame level but (once St. Bobby is excluded) as one of the very few GOAT candidates at the D position... and for much of that time it was clear that the Bruins organization was governed solely by the bottom line, and not by a pursuit of the Cup. When it came time for the final contract, the Bruins organization so much admitted that since they were basically agreeable to trading him away but only to a team that had a shot at the Cup.

Totally different then AV's situation. Not even close.

Click to expand...

They made the playoffs 17 of his 18 full seasons on the team, made the conference finals 5 times and the Stanley Cup finals twice during his time with the Bruins.

That's BS, I followed the team then, went to plenty of games. They were in the hunt every year.

Try explaining how 5 conference finals in 18 years is supposed to garner sympathy.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not buying it. There's no way you followed that team and don't understand why Bourque was the exception. This was a guy who got a celebration in Boston after winning the cup in Colorado, and 20,000 showed up for that rally. Hell, there were members of their opponents (the Devils) who were crying because they were happy for him as well as sad for themselves. This was the guy who was special enough that Sakic broke from tradition and gave him the cup for the first victory lap.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. There's no way you followed that team and don't understand why Bourque was the exception. This was a guy who got a celebration in Boston after winning the cup in Colorado, and 20,000 showed up for that rally. Hell, there were members of their opponents (the Devils) who were crying because they were happy for him as well as sad for themselves. This was the guy who was special enough that Sakic broke from tradition and gave him the cup for the first victory lap.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not trying to sell anything. It was being portrayed that poor ol' Ray Bourque spent 18+ years with a team that had no shot because of winning anything because of the management. Fact is whatever you think of the management of that time they made the playoffs 17 out of 18 years, 5 Conference and two Stanley Cup finals during Bourque's years with the team.

The celebration on Boston was ridiculous, being traded to an overwhelming favorite simply to win a championship is kind of an empty victory IMO. So Bourque's entitled to get his, Bledsoe can go to a division rival, Fisk can go to another team because his contract was mailed a day late and they're all revered but Vinatieri whose kicks were the difference in 3 SB victories somehow gets righteously booed because he's the bad guy, he doesn't deserve his, can't do what's right for him and his family even though he's the only one who made an actual contribution to a championship. I don't get the backward logic.